Goulden vs Milne

This case concerned a dispute between Moira Rose Goulden and Andrew Jonathan Milne over the acquisition of the freehold estate in Crown House, Rhyl, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

TLDR:

• Goulden sought to acquire the freehold estate of Crown House under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
• The court had to determine if the premises fell under the Act and if the notice was served in time.
• The court ruled in favor of Goulden, allowing the acquisition of the freehold estate.

Moira Rose Goulden, the claimant, issued a Part 8 claim form on 2 March 2023 to acquire the freehold estate in Crown House, Rhyl, under Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The premises comprised nine residential flats and two commercial units. The freehold owner, Andrew Jonathan Milne, purchased the premises on 1 June 2022 for £40,000.

The claimant, a tenant of Flat 1, acted as the nominated purchaser on behalf of herself and other residential tenants. The court had to determine if the premises were subject to Part 1 of the 1987 Act and if the notice to acquire the freehold was served within the specified time limit.

The court examined the statutory provisions of the 1987 Act, particularly sections 1, 3, 11, and 12B, which outline the rights of qualifying tenants to acquire the freehold estate and the requirements for serving notices. It was undisputed that the former landlord did not serve a notice under section 5 before selling the freehold estate to the defendant.

The court found that the premises were subject to Part 1 of the 1987 Act, as more than 50% of the internal floor area was occupied for residential purposes. The single joint expert, Ms. Hannah James, confirmed that the residential area exceeded 50% of the total internal area, satisfying the requirements of section 1(3)(b).

The court also addressed the validity of the purchase notice served by the claimant on 7 December 2022. The defendant argued that the notice was invalid and served out of time. However, the court found that the notice was served within the six-month period required by section 12B(3) of the 1987 Act.

The court rejected the defendant's claims that the purchase notice was invalid due to the alleged non-existence of one of the tenants and the use of a trading name by the claimant's solicitors. The court found that the requisite majority of qualifying tenants had authorized the notice and that the solicitors acted within their authority.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the claimant was entitled to acquire the freehold estate in Crown House under the purchase notice dated 5 December 2022. The judgment also noted the inappropriate conduct of the defendant, a practicing solicitor, and referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation.

Legal representatives: Richard Oughton (instructed by Albinson Napier Ltd) for the Claimant. The Defendant in person.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Keyser KC

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EW Misc 1 (CC)